Tolerance cannot be measured in terms of degrees of intolerance. I am essentially opposed to burning books even when they incite others to violence. But freedom is either an absolute or it is conditioned on not inciting others to violence. Anything else is rationalized bigotry.

Search This Blog

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

R.I.P. (Repent In Purgatory) Hakeemullah Mehsud

THE FOLLOWING IS A GUEST CONTRIBUTION FROM ALAN'S POLICY BLOG. HIS BLOG ADDRESS IS AT THE END OF THIS ARTICLE.

From the perspective of Judeo/Christian
morality the now ex-leader of the Pakistan Taliban was an individual imbued
with evil. His moral maliciousness permeated the very fibre of his being.
Personally he beheaded kafirs, non-believers, and mowed down with automatic
weapons scores if not hundreds more. In his leadership role he planned many
further atrocities slaughtering many thousands, mainly fellow Muslims.

He hated the US, the big Satan, the little Satan
and the West in general. Having slain many American citizens in Afghanistan and Pakistan,
the US
had good reason not to like him. Seeing no chance of bringing Mehsud to justice
before hell freezes over, by which time casting him downwards would hardly be an
effective punishment, the US, after years of trying, have finally managed to
execute him.

A drone, controlled from thousands of miles
away, crept up on him, tapped him on the shoulder, smiled and then after a
thirty seconds slo-mo whilst the victim suddenly realised his plight,
vapourised him.

Good job, well done some may say. At least some
form of justice was affected albeit not with the ideal integrity that free
democracies demand of their own systems when prosecuting their own subjects.

Well so be it. What is done is done. Was it a
sensible action or will it disadvantage the US and reflect badly on the West
and its allies?

Some argue that it strengthens the hand of the
West. Others led by the BBC, that it has ruined the chances of any sort of
peace agreement between the Pakistan
government and the Taliban.

Looking at
the logic of each of these positions in turn:

First from
the anti-Taliban, pro-drone perspective:

1.Killing the leader of any terrorist
organisation sends a powerful message. Unlike their followers who have been
indoctrinated into the philosophy of self-immolation, the leaders value their
own lives too much. After all leadership must have some perks. The US has a record of killing with drones senior
Taliban members in both Pakistan
and Afghanistan.

2.This sends a powerful message to
would be terrorist leaders. Move into any of the top hot seats and you become a
priority target. Judging from what has happened to your predecessors your days
are numbered. If you want to avoid their fate then start negotiating to
save your arse.

3.This means that when the political
negotiations start, the Taliban have internalised that they cannot win and that
they must compromise to save themselves.

4.For the anti-Taliban forces it means
they have the negotiating advantage and can drive a hard bargain going way
beyond a temporary cease fire to gain a lasting peace.

Looking at
it now from the anti-drone strike perspective:

1.Drone strikes are immoral and flout international law because they cause
collateral damage

2.Collateral damage hardens the
attitudes of the general populace against those forces that caused the
collateral damage

3.The Taliban leadership, via a video,
had let it be known that they wanted to talk with the Pakistani government.

4.Killing their leader will make them
all angry and they will now no longer want to negotiate.

5.The implication is that whatever
carnage ensues will be the fault of the Americans for being stupid enough to
kill Hakeemullah Mehsud.

6.Their crime made doubly worse by the
use of drones.

Which of
these positions do you feel is more likely to be right?

Both make
assumptions and have logical inconsistencies.

Amongst the
main ones against those in favour of drone attacks are that:

xSome Taliban leaders may seek martyrdom. If that were the case then
these leaders will never come to the negotiating table unless they know they
have the advantage. Handled skilfully the negotiation outcome will be yet
another step towards their ultimate goal of Islam-uber-alles and Sharia law
supremacy.

x The
anti-Taliban negotiators may be as inept as the Europeans headed by Baroness
Ashton and totally fail to capitalise on the advantage they have been given.

The main
illogicalities of those who see the drone strikes as detrimental to peace
include:

xIf collateral damage from drone strikes, which are relatively tiny,
causes such hatred against the West, then the collateral damage of tens of
thousands of Muslims murdered by the Taliban should generate proportionally
more hatred against the Taliban and thus weaken their position. Apparently this
is not the case.

xThe
first duty of any government is to protect its citizens. This is even enshrined
in that flaky body of jurisprudence referred to as international law. Therefore
although it will be argued that drone strikes are illegal under international
law, this cannot take precedence over an administration’s duty to protect its
own citizens.

xIt
might also be claimed that the likelihood of becoming collateral damage by
harbouring dangerous psychopaths like Mehsud in their midst might make the
communities loyal to him reconsider the wisdom of their action.

My analysis is deliberately simplistic. I have
not considered any of the broader political dynamics impacting on this
situation nor of the technological and social forces that are pertinent.

Nevertheless, I conclude, as you may have
guessed, that on balance the US
judicial killing is a force for good, albeit I also understand the arguments
against it.

Of course my analysis is, besides an
intellectual exercise, of no significant consequence. What matters is how
things turn out in the real world.

My assertion is that drone strike will
continue, piling even more pressure on the Taliban to come to the negotiating
table. My bet is that within 12 months they will be talking to the
Pakistani government and that they will, by that stage, be desperate to salvage
almost anything from their broken dream of an expanding, Sharia compliant
Caliphate.

Any takers?

This should hand a major tactical advantage to
the Pakistani government providing they prove more competent negotiators than
Baroness Ashton’s lot.

You may however, have come to a different
conclusion which would be interesting to hear about.

Pakistan’s intelligence service (The ISI) has
well documented connections to many terrorist groups.It is through many of these proxies that some
awful crimes have been committed in the furtherance of Pakistan’s local
and international agenda.Lashkar-e-Taiba
carried out the 2008 Mumbai atrocity that killed over 160 people.Throughout the massacre the Pakistani killers
who belonged to this murderous movement were recorded, in ongoing communication
with their ISI handlers. Given the opportunity, these ‘holy’ Muslim warriors
horrifically tortured many of their victims before granting them “release” through
death.

The USA
should cease funding Pakistan
and declare that there will be no resumption until the Taliban are disbanded –
now that would bring the Taliban to the negotiating table!